I think the basic problem that you're dealing with is that most drivers and itenerant cyclists ARE incompetent by your standards. if you haven't noticed, the whole of American road infrastructure is designed so that a minimally competent person can drive from A to B with a pretty good chance of getting there. Add in the additional electronic distractions and the scofflaw attitude of the American motorist and you have the present situation. Whether it actually could be marginally more dangerous to have seperated facilities is not germane to the point that perceptually, street riding is considered dangerous. FWIW you have NOT convinced me that VC is actually safer than Dutch style seperated facilities.In fact I highly doubt it. (And I ride on the streets 5 days a week commuting)

No but deriding those who don't agree with you is. Since cities are now starting to put seperated facilities in, I think that effort , although happening much later that it could have, is the best demonstration of VC's bankruptcy for the "average" cyclist.

I disagree with your claim that most American motorists are incompetent; they manage to use the road system in the way for which it was designed (except, of course, for a few places such as Boston). Because the American road system is easily used by drivers who obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles demonstrates that this is so regardless of whether the drivers are motorists or cyclists. I agree with you that most American cyclists are traffic-incompetent; the measurements of their behavior show that. That is their problem, one that they have chosen to make, considering that many of them also have motoring licenses.

I have never tried to convince you, or anyone, that cycling in the "VC manner [on American roads] is actually safer than cycling in the Dutch manner on Dutch-style separated facilities." Instead, I have consistently written that attempting to import Dutch designs into the American road system is highly unlikely to produce the supposed results of the Dutch designs, which are high bicycle modal share with few car-bike collisions.

The separated facilities, cycle tracks are the current name for such facilities, that have been installed in a few places in some American cities do not meet the Dutch design standards and it is unlikely that they can be operated in the Dutch manner.

The fact that such defective imitations of Dutch practice so strongly appeal to the general public simply demonstrates the unwillingness of the general public to adopt the safe and useful cycling practice of obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The fact that you approve of the incompetent cycling manner of the general cycling public demonstrates that you are much less concerned with the safety and welfare of cyclists than you are with some other political objective. The objective that most obviously comes to mind is persuading people to switch trips from motor to bicycle transport.

So, excluding motor traffic from Amsterdam and such, so that the historic pattern of walking and cycling can be resumed is a significant achievement? Mass motoring in Amsterdam is like trying to serve soup in an ice cream cone; it just doesn't work. All the Dutch did was to recognize that and return to serving their soup in cups or bowls, that is, walking and cycling, just as they always had.

Yes, it is correct that many people do not live in close proximity to their places of work, and are enabled to do so by automotive travel. That's their choice, made (except for short-term dislocations) because they see that as best suiting their needs. That is a major social benefit of automotive travel.

So, you still haven't read Hembrow's blog. How I know? From all the false claims about the Netherlands (and actually most of Europe) in your posts.

So, you still haven't read Hembrow's blog. How I know? From all the false claims about the Netherlands (and actually most of Europe) in your posts.

I have read much of Hembrow's prolific material. If you care to state my erroneous claims about the Netherlands, then please do so. If you aren't specific, then your writing is no more than disturbed electrons. Put up or shut up.

You claim that what I assert to be facts are not facts at all. If that is so, then it ought to be easy to disprove them, which you have not done. You assert that, for some reasons including my supposed immaturity, I fail to conduct a reasonable discussion. Considering what has been written, I consider that my responses have been both factual and reasonable.

I claim that vehicular cycling is the best way for cyclists to operate on the American road system. I also assert, although this is only a far peripheral issue when considering the best way for cyclists to operate, that there are good reasons why American cities have developed in the way that they have. It appears that your objection to my stances on these issues is that you don't like them, even though you have nothing better to offer. Even more so, your objection is really based on the fact that vehicular cycling does not appeal to those of the general public who might, somehow, be persuaded to switch trips from motor to bicycle transport. Well, that's the factual bind in which your hopes must operate.

If a program of research, design, test, successful results, and start of implementation shows that some different system will produce safe, convenient, and popular cycling, then I will be all for it. But America has not even started the research phase of such a program. All that we have produced recently are further dumbed-down facility designs with the hope that something good might result.
(Emphasis added, jcr)

John,

These two photos are not from The Netherlands; they are from Oregon Health and Science University's Center for Health and Healing, in south Portland, Oregon. The first shows the bicycle area, but doesn't show the bicycles locked next to the building, which number about the same as is shown here. The second photo shows the brand new Gibbs Street Pedestrian/bicycle Bridge over Interstate 5's six lanes of freeway. This pedestrian bridge allows people to access the OHSU buildings on the east side of the I-5 Freeway without having to go on existing bridges/roadways that are for access to the freeway or areas around the freeway. The tram goes up to the top of Marquam Hill ("Pill Hill," where OHSU has its main buildings), allowing people access from the bottom of hill without having to drive to the top, and they can take their bikes too. An elevator is provided for those who want to take their bikes up to the top of the pedestrian bridge. Where the roadway ties into the tram and pedestrian bridge, there is also a street car track. -------

Not shown is the separated bike paths that follow roadways to the OHSU buildings, and the bike lanes that promote access. They connect to the bikeways that cross the Willamette River, and the Waterfront Park areas. The shack shown in the bicycle parking area is manned with bicycle technicians who can fix and repair bicycles on-site.

I took my bicycle to get to my doctor's appointment from Beaverton to downtown Portland in September onto the MAX train, then got off in the center of Portland and rode the bike paths (mostly) to OHSU's Center for Health and Healing to get some skin cancer removed from my leg (lots of sun in early years). It was an easy commute, and rather fun, and I did not have to drive Highway 26 through the tunnel at peak traffic times.

Since this is now being demonstrated in the USA as attracting bicycle usage by the people who work and go to the OHSU Center for Health and Healing, I hope that you will take a good look and perhaps change a bit of your mind on this.

Hagen brings up a great point about johns comments tacitly endorsing dutch cycling infrastructure.

You people are such ideological liars that you cannot write the truth. In no way have I endorsed the Dutch traffic system for application in America. In fact, I have repeatedly warned against the assumption that attempting to import that system into typical American cities will produce the Dutch results here.

These two photos are not from The Netherlands; they are from Oregon Health and Science University's Center for Health and Healing, in south Portland, Oregon. The first shows the bicycle lockers, but doesn't show the bicycles locked next to the building, which number about the same as is shown here. The second photo shows the brand new pedestrian/bicycle bridge over Interstate 5's six lanes of freeway. This pedestrian bridge allows people to access the OHSU buildings on the east side of the I-5 Freeway without having to go on existing bridges/roadways that are for access to the freeway or areas around the freeway. The tram goes up to the top of Marquam Hill ("Pill Hill," where OHSU has its main buildings), allowing people access from the bottom of hill without having to drive to the top, and they can take their bikes too. An elevator is provided for those who want to take their bikes up to the top of the pedestrian bridge.-------

Not shown is the separated bike paths that follow roadways to the OHSU buildings, and the bike lanes that promote access. They connect to the bikeways that cross the Willamette River, and the Waterfront Park areas. Since this is now being demonstrated in the USA as attracting bicycle usage by the people who work and go to the OHSU Center for Health and Healing, I hope that you will take a good look and perhaps change a bit of your mind on this.

John

The facilities that you show have nothing in common with the traffic-engineering difficulties of surface-street bikeways that have been the subject of discussion. These facilities are impracticable for general installation to solve the traffic difficulties of the typical American city. The fact that they attract considerable usage is therefore irrelevant. I think that there has been no doubt for a long time, for decades, that particular paths can attract considerable usage. That being so, what is your new point?

The facilities that you show have nothing in common with the traffic-engineering difficulties of surface-street bikeways that have been the subject of discussion. These facilities are impracticable for general installation to solve the traffic difficulties of the typical American city. The fact that they attract considerable usage is therefore irrelevant. I think that there has been no doubt for a long time, for decades, that particular paths can attract considerable usage. That being so, what is your new point?

John,

You are ignoring a completely new facility that is changing bicycle commuting in the Portland area. There is an OHSU's Bike Incentive Program. There is now a Portland Bicycle Plan 2030, which will guide development efforts to improve cycling. You state that "these facilities are impracticable for general installation to solve the traffic difficulties of a typical American city..." But they are being implemented as I write this in a typical American city. They have a Year One Progress Report online. Here are the OHSU stats for 2010-2011:

...--In 2009, more than 5,400 people died in crashes that were reported to involve a distracted driver and about 448,000 people were injured.1

--Among those killed or injured in these crashes, nearly 1,000 deaths and 24,000 injuries included cell phone use as the major distraction.1

--The proportion of drivers reportedly distracted at the time of a fatal crash has increased from 7 percent in 2005 to 11 percent in 2009...

...25% of drivers in the United States reported that they “regularly or fairly often” talk on their cell phones while driving.6...

...75% of U.S. drivers ages 18 to 29 reported that they talked on their cell phone while driving at least once in the past 30 days, and nearly 40% reported that they talk on their cell phone “regularly” or “fairly often” while driving.6

You are ignoring a completely new facility that is changing bicycle commuting in the Portland area. There is an OHSU's Bike Incentive Program. There is now a Portland Bicycle Plan 2030, which will guide development efforts to improve cycling. You state that "these facilities are impracticable for general installation to solve the traffic difficulties of a typical American city..." But they are being implemented as I write this in a typical American city. They have a Year One Progress Report online. Here are the OHSU stats for 2010-2011:

You say that I am ignoring some completely new facility in Portland. Judging from the photos you show and the fact that your document states that cyclists depend on it, it must be the aerial tram. Portland's mass transit system is already very heavily subsidized. Considering the cost and capacity of the aerial tram, I can't guess the cost per passenger mile of that system, except to say that it is probably the most expensive of Portland's mass transit systems. And since you claim that such facilities are suitable for general installation in the typical American city, it looks as though you are advocating aerial trams to get cyclists up any significant hill.

As for the program of paying cyclists to commute, which is what most of your document is about, I suppose that this can be considered as just one more subsidy for urban transportation that gets justified by votes. However, there is the reasonable issue of whether this is paying those cyclists who would commute by bicycle in any case, or whether it is paying people who commute by bicycle simply because of the payment. I rather doubt the latter. And this program, which appears to be city-wide, carries about 1600 trips per day, when the total trips per day is probably over 200,000. (I can't look this up while using bike forums program.) That's insignificant in a transportational sense.

Furthermore, this has nothing at all to do with the traffic-engineering problems that have been the subject of this discussion; it is more irrelevant fog to obscure the real subject of discussion.

You are ignoring a completely new facility that is changing bicycle commuting in the Portland area. There is an OHSU's Bike Incentive Program. There is now a Portland Bicycle Plan 2030, which will guide development efforts to improve cycling. You state that "these facilities are impracticable for general installation to solve the traffic difficulties of a typical American city..." But they are being implemented as I write this in a typical American city. They have a Year One Progress Report online. Here are the OHSU stats for 2010-2011:

More irrelevancies that require an additional post. Ratliff claims that I oppose the use of maps because, I suppose, he thinks that I believe that Vehicular Cycling provides its own navigational system.

It might be confusing, but OHSU is different from the City of Portland. The stats are only for OHSU.

If you'll look at the photo, the tram is an OHSU system for transporting workers between the buildings up on Marqum Hill and the new buildings on the South Waterfront. They charge non-employees $5 to go up on the tram, so I haven't used it yet. But my wife, who works for OHSU, uses it frequently.

What I wanted to point out is the pedestrian/bicycle bridge over the freeways, which is in the lower left portion of the photo. This is part of the infrastructure that the City of Portland and State of Oregon are building to facilitate access from the west side of the freeway to the east side, and vice versa. There is a better photo of the pedestrian bridge here.

Quote:

Construction of the Gibbs Street Pedestrian Bridge was a longstanding priority for community members in the South Portland Neighborhood (formerly the Corbett/Terwilliger/Lair Hill neighborhood). This pedestrian and bicycle bridge provides safe and convenient access between these neighborhoods and the Willamette River and the emerging South Waterfront District. The City of Portland received funding from the Federal Highway Administration to design and construct this important bike and pedestrian connection.

I don't have photos of the new bike access on the surface streets, but I'll post it when I do. It makes riding much easier, and entanglements with traffic flow much less. I did find this link to the Southwest Moody Project, which has photos of the new surface roadways.

But it looks like you are entrenched in your thinking, and unwilling or unable to re-look at your assumptions.

Concerning the maps, what I was pointing out is that the bicycle maps make recommendations on routes, based upon the facility provided and traffic flow. That is the point I felt that, from your previous posts, you would have trouble with.

It might be confusing, but OHSU is different from the City of Portland. The stats are only for OHSU.

If you'll look at the photo, the tram is an OHSU system for transporting workers between the buildings up on Marqum Hill and the new buildings on the South Waterfront. They charge non-employees $5 to go up on the tram, so I haven't used it yet. But my wife, who works for OHSU, uses it frequently.

What I wanted to point out is the pedestrian/bicycle bridge over the freeways, which is in the lower left portion of the photo. This is part of the infrastructure that the City of Portland and State of Oregon are building to facilitate access from the west side of the freeway to the east side, and vice versa. There is a better photo of the pedestrian bridge here.

I don't have photos of the new bike access on the surface streets, but I'll post it when I do. It makes riding much easier, and entanglements with traffic flow much less. I did find this link to the Southwest Moody Project, which has photos of the new surface roadways.

But it looks like you are entrenched in your thinking, and unwilling or unable to re-look at your assumptions.

Concerning the maps, what I was pointing out is that the bicycle maps make recommendations on routes, based upon the facility provided and traffic flow. That is the point I felt that, from your previous posts, you would have trouble with.

John

So you have a nice pedestrian and cyclist bridge across a freeway. Unless that has something horrible at either end, it is completely irrelevant to the traffic-engineering problems that pertain to the choice between obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and using the adjacent bikeway, which has been the subject throughout.

So you have a nice pedestrian and cyclist bridge across a freeway. Unless that has something horrible at either end, it is completely irrelevant to the traffic-engineering problems that pertain to the choice between obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and using the adjacent bikeway, which has been the subject throughout.

John,

If you'll look at the link to the SW Moody Project in my post above, you'll see some of those changes (I've provided it here too).

I've been reading our Washington County Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan (adjacent to Portland) and found this write-up on the context through which this planning is proceeding:

Quote:

Context Information
Relevant Legislation, Plans, and Criteria
State, regional, and local plans set forth the regulatory and planning context for determining the
needs anticipated for Washington County’s pedestrian and bikeway system. Provided below is a
description of the various plans that provide guidance for and link into the 2020 Transportation
Plan.

Transportation Planning Rule
In 1991, the State Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) adopted the
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) to implement Goal 12, the Transportation Goal adopted in
1974. Goal 12 seeks to “reduce reliance on the automobile and assure that the planned
transportation system supports a pattern of travel and land use in urban areas which will avoid
the air pollution, traffic and livability problems faced by other areas of the country.”

The Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires a Transportation System Plan to
contain: “A bicycle and pedestrian plan for a network of bicycle and pedestrian routes
throughout the planning area. The network and list of facility improvements shall be consistent
with the requirements of ORS 366.514...” The TPR also requires local governments to adopt
regulations that ensure construction of bikeways along arterials and major collector streets and
to provide bicycle parking facilities as part of new multi-family residential developments of four
units or more, new retail, office and institutional developments, and all transit transfer stations
and park-and-ride lots1. ftp://tbg5.co.washington.or.us/bikep...dPlan0810Z.pdf

It looks like you lost this argument a long, long time ago in Oregon (1991, to be exact).

John

Last edited by John C. Ratliff; 11-19-12 at 07:53 PM.
Reason: add design information for the SW Moody Project

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Posts: 18,025

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)

Tagged: 0 Thread(s)

Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Forester

You people are such ideological liars that you cannot write the truth. In no way have I endorsed the Dutch traffic system for application in America. In fact, I have repeatedly warned against the assumption that attempting to import that system into typical American cities will produce the Dutch results here.

Scuttle the bellyaching. Your own comment

Quote:

Originally Posted by john forester

If a program of research, design, test, successful results, and start of implementation shows that some different system will produce safe, convenient, and popular cycling, then I will be all for it.

IS a tacit endorsement of Dutch bicycling infrastructure.

john versus the facts cannot even recognize when he supports something.

John admittedly can support a better system, one researched, designed, tested, shown results and implemented to produce safe, convenient and popular cycling. In a discussion of Dutch cycling versus US cycling, John's comment

Quote:

If a program of research, design, test, successful results, and start of implementation shows that some different system will produce safe, convenient, and popular cycling, then I will be all for it.

This is probably worth its own thread (or may have been argued in multiple older threads that I can't find):

Do we have a chicken & egg problem? Many feel that ridership will increase if we invest in cycling-specific infrastructure, and point to cities like Copenhagen that have both high ridership and infrastructure investments. Build it and they will come goes the argument.

Or is it come and they will build it? Seems like, given how difficult it is to afford, drive, and park a car in Copenhagen, people would tend to prefer bicycles for their convenience, regardless of the infrastructure. And in that environment, it's easier to generate the political will and resources to invest in infrastructure that people already want?

I'm starting to come to the opinion that significantly more people will ride bicycles only when it is the most convenient alternative in terms of time and money. Not when it's safer, not when there is more infrastructure, but when it's faster and cheaper.

I think Portland is probably most the obvious counter example to my opinion, because it appears that they have invested in infrastructure and seen an increase of ridership. The question I'd have for Portland bicycle commuters is if their bicycle commute is faster and cheaper than commuting by car (or bus or train).

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Forester

I agree with Dave's conclusion that bicycle transportation gets done, rather regardless of infrastructure, when it is the faster and most convenient of the available choices. That is the message provided by the European cities with high bicycle modal share. Remember, when those cities encountered the modern mass availability of motor transport, they became clogged up to an extent never seen in America, not even in Boston or Manhattan NYC. Just see the photos circulated in these discussions to observe this point. The immediate revulsion to this, and the desire to get back to their old walking and bicycling system, is what drove events in those cities.

However, Portland is not the most obvious counter example to this view. This is because Portland has long had a massive anti-motoring campaign to make motoring difficult, to support both its mass transit system and bicycle transportation. It could not prevent private businesses from leaving downtown Portland because of the motoring and parking difficulties, but it could, and does, require by law that a great many of the government offices be in downtown Portland, to keep the office space filled.

"...Portland has long had a massive anti-motoring campaign to make motoring difficult, to support both its mass transit system and bicycle transportation. ..." Forester

Portland does not have an anti-motoring campaign, nor has it ever had such a campaign. The city supports travel by motor vehicle within and through the city, and has long done so, recognizing this mode of transportation to be one that's vital to the city and people living there, as well as to people visiting and doing business there. Beginning decades back as people in the city came to recognize the area's finite ability to accommodate increasing numbers of motor vehicles, Portland began to develop infrastructure that offer alternatives to motor vehicle travel. Efforts in Portland, and surrounding cities and towns to expand and improve active transportation infrastructure, drawing from and experimenting with examples offered by other efforts made around the world, continue to this day.

So to Dave's question as to whether increases in biking are a 'build it and they will come', or a 'come and they will build it' process: In Portland, I think it's been both. An example of the former type of infrastructure such as the Springwater Corridor Trail, located on a closed rail alignment relatively close to and paralleling to be one of the city's east side thoroughfares, has many people using it everyday. The trail being largely away from motor vehicle traffic provides an opportunity for people that want to bike but don't yet have the chops to wrangle with motor vehicle traffic, or just simply would prefer to not have to deal with it, to get out and ride.

Elsewhere, all over the city, but especially on certain of the city's streets and thoroughfares, such as Hawthorne Blvd and Williams Ave, connecting inner neighborhoods with Downtown, over years, numbers of people biking have increased as benefits of biking in the city dawned on them. In response to and in support of biking as transportation...but not in an 'anti-motoring' sense...the city has researched, designed and gradually built various types of bike infrastructure to accommodate increasing numbers of people interested in biking to work, shop, recreation and so on. Cities in the burbs are taking cues from their citizens and Portland's efforts, improving and expanding their own bike and walking infrastructure. Gradually, it gets better and better for active transportation in the Tualitan and Willamette Valley.

I would say though, that in this area of the NW, as it may be across the nation, questions about the type of ability and skill a person should have, or should be obliged to have to ride a bike in traffic amongst motor vehicles are very much unanswered, or at the least, vary much from person to person. There are people that seem to very much feel that a person on a bike really ought not to be responsible for having in-traffic skills beyond knowledge of hand turn signals and basic traffic controls. Other people fully believe that a person on a bike had better have all of the skills and more, that a person driving a car should have...if that is, they want to not get hit, and live to ride another day. There's no consensus on what level or type of skill people that ride should have. The entire subject on this seems to be perceived vaguely, and quickly becomes conflicted whenever the slightest possibility that some type of standardized bike specific education might involve some formal, official arrangements in order for it to be widely distributed.

Originally Posted by john forester
If a program of research, design, test, successful results, and start of implementation shows that some different system will produce safe, convenient, and popular cycling, then I will be all for it. Originally Posted by hagen2456
Ah, okay. So you DO approve of the Dutch system. Good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bekologist

Hagen brings up a great point about johns comments tacitly endorsing dutch cycling infrastructure.

The pair of you are ideological liars who will tell any lie that your ideology directs. My statement above was surrounded by sentences limiting the discussion to work in America, including that America hasn't even started such a program, so you remove the American references just so you can post your lies.

If you'll look at the link to the SW Moody Project in my post above, you'll see some of those changes (I've provided it here too).

This project ties everything together.

I've been reading our Washington County Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan (adjacent to Portland) and found this write-up on the context through which this planning is proceeding:

It looks like you lost this argument a long, long time ago in Oregon (1991, to be exact).

John

So Portland is just another place that has built a cycle track on a bridge that presents none of the traffic problems that typically abound when cycle tracks are installed on typical city streets. It is clear that Ratliff doesn't understand the problem that we have been discussing, or his ideology prevents him from discussing it.

So Portland, like almost all cities nationwide, has to have a traffic plan that includes bicycle traffic. That's no news to anyone. The important issue is what gets produced. Much of it is nonsense, but some is dangerous. Particularly in Oregon, where you have mandatory bike lanes with bike boxes, a enticement, even legal forcing, of ill-informed cyclists into cyclist-killing situations. Sure, the bicycle advocates managed to build on the motoring establishment's anti-cyclist designs so that they can proclaim their angelic nature in doing so much. But, as I have written before, American bikeways have never demonstrated that they make cycling much safer, neither for adults nor, as the bicycle advocates particularly claim, for children and mothers.

John, it doesn't appear that you will even look at the specifics of the SW Moody Project and comment on that project. Instead, you generalize about other parts of Portland's bicycle plan. So much for discussion...tell you what, I'm going to ride that area tomorrow and report back. I have a lunch meeting for an upcoming conference (not bicycling), and need to be in that area anyway. I've mapped out a route from my home in Beaverton to downtown Portland, where my lunch appointment is located. After that appointment, I'm going to ride the downtown area, then out to the SW Moody Road. I may ride back, or hop on the MAX (train) to get back depending upon time, weather, and my body.

By the way, I understand well the problem; two trips to the hospital leave an impression.

So Portland is just another place that has built a cycle track on a bridge that presents none of the traffic problems that typically abound when cycle tracks are installed on typical city streets. It is clear that Ratliff doesn't understand the problem that we have been discussing, or his ideology prevents him from discussing it.

So Portland, like almost all cities nationwide, has to have a traffic plan that includes bicycle traffic. That's no news to anyone. The important issue is what gets produced. Much of it is nonsense, but some is dangerous. Particularly in Oregon, where you have mandatory bike lanes with bike boxes, a enticement, even legal forcing, of ill-informed cyclists into cyclist-killing situations. Sure, the bicycle advocates managed to build on the motoring establishment's anti-cyclist designs so that they can proclaim their angelic nature in doing so much. But, as I have written before, American bikeways have never demonstrated that they make cycling much safer, neither for adults nor, as the bicycle advocates particularly claim, for children and mothers.

The story of the Portland Tram's reason for being, design and construction is fascinating. The tram was both controversial, surrounded by intrigue and expensive. In the final analysis though, it was probably the smartest, least expensive option for the objective it met, and return it will bring in years to come. At any rate, neither the tram nor the bike pedestrian bridge connecting the tram boarding point with the neighborhood across the highways were built just for cyclists or foot traffic. Both were part of a much larger effort to essentially repair damage inflicted on the city's basic transportation functionality and livability by excessive reliance on motor vehicles for transportation, and commitment of the lion's share of road infrastructure to motor vehicle use. That people using bikes for transportation can ride the tram for transport up the hill, is a nice extra, that may help...actually, has helped to encourage more people to use bikes for transportation to work and school on the hill, rather than driving or taking mass transit; and also, will help to expand the city's long term objectives of expanding people's options for travel within the city.

Availability of the tram and the bike-pedestrian bridge in no way obviates a need for good, in-traffic bike specific skills to deal with traveling along main travel lanes, in them with motor vehicles, or crossing them to make directional turns. People traveling by bike generally have to travel some distance by bike through a wide range of traffic situations before they get to the relative refuge of the tram and the bridge.

Do you get it yet, John? You don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to cycle infrastructure, and the VC fundamentalism which you spread has failed to deliver anything but a risible amount of cycling – and a high accident rate – in the US.

People in the Netherlands choose to use the bike for transport because the infrastructure makes it so quick and easy. Almost nobody in the US cycles, and it’s partially because John Forester backed the wrong horse in 1972 and spent the next 40 years shouting about it..

I'd like to repeat some of that. john, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to cycle infrastructure.

The fact that such defective imitations of Dutch practice so strongly appeal to the general public simply demonstrates the unwillingness of the general public to adopt the safe and useful cycling practice of obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The fact that you approve of the incompetent cycling manner of the general cycling public demonstrates that you are much less concerned with the safety and welfare of cyclists than you are with some other political objective. The objective that most obviously comes to mind is persuading people to switch trips from motor to bicycle transport.

Realization of an actual state of affairs has nothing to do with "approval" , but a lot to do with practicality. Safety and welfare has everything to do with it. When dealing with a low level of competence you have to provide facilities that allow for the activity at the level of competence then present.

I disagree with your claim that most American motorists are incompetent; they manage to use the road system in the way for which it was designed (except, of course, for a few places such as Boston). Because the American road system is easily used by drivers who obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles demonstrates that this is so regardless of whether the drivers are motorists or cyclists. I agree with you that most American cyclists are traffic-incompetent; the measurements of their behavior show that. That is their problem, one that they have chosen to make, considering that many of them also have motoring licenses.

I have never tried to convince you, or anyone, that cycling in the "VC manner [on American roads] is actually safer than cycling in the Dutch manner on Dutch-style separated facilities." Instead, I have consistently written that attempting to import Dutch designs into the American road system is highly unlikely to produce the supposed results of the Dutch designs, which are high bicycle modal share with few car-bike collisions.

The separated facilities, cycle tracks are the current name for such facilities, that have been installed in a few places in some American cities do not meet the Dutch design standards and it is unlikely that they can be operated in the Dutch manner.

The fact that such defective imitations of Dutch practice so strongly appeal to the general public simply demonstrates the unwillingness of the general public to adopt the safe and useful cycling practice of obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The fact that you approve of the incompetent cycling manner of the general cycling public demonstrates that you are much less concerned with the safety and welfare of cyclists than you are with some other political objective. The objective that most obviously comes to mind is persuading people to switch trips from motor to bicycle transport.

Wow, quite a few admissions in the above commentary... I especially like the part about the lack of safety in the VC system verses the Dutch system: "I have never tried to convince you, or anyone, that cycling in the "VC manner [on American roads] is actually safer than cycling in the Dutch manner on Dutch-style separated facilities.""

And of course, this little tidbit always makes me wonder about John's motives: "The objective that most obviously comes to mind is persuading people to switch trips from motor to bicycle transport."

I'd really like to know what is wrong with persuading people to switch trips from motor to bicycle transport? The motor vehicle is used to such excess in America that the lack of exercise for the general population has come to near epidemic proportions. (and I use the word "proportions" somewhat ironically).

John has long accused me of being anti-motoring... well I really what to know what is wrong with being anti-motoring. I am also anti-noise, anti-air pollution, anti-dependent on foreign oil, and I'm not terribly fond of war nor the pumping of strange chemicals into the ground to force out the very last drop of hydrocarbons. So yes, I am anti-motoring. But having observed motoring in excess in the US verses motoring and cycling and the general shape of people in other lands... I don't believe motoring is all that much a blessing to the US. It has it's place, no doubt, but not to the extend that the typical American takes it.

So what is wrong with wanting to save oil, reduce noise, reduce pollution and generally push Americans toward a transportation system that may actually do them some good?

Wow, quite a few admissions in the above commentary... I especially like the part about the lack of safety in the VC system verses the Dutch system: "I have never tried to convince you, or anyone, that cycling in the "VC manner [on American roads] is actually safer than cycling in the Dutch manner on Dutch-style separated facilities.""

And of course, this little tidbit always makes me wonder about John's motives: "The objective that most obviously comes to mind is persuading people to switch trips from motor to bicycle transport."

I'd really like to know what is wrong with persuading people to switch trips from motor to bicycle transport? The motor vehicle is used to such excess in America that the lack of exercise for the general population has come to near epidemic proportions. (and I use the word "proportions" somewhat ironically).

John has long accused me of being anti-motoring... well I really what to know what is wrong with being anti-motoring. I am also anti-noise, anti-air pollution, anti-dependent on foreign oil, and I'm not terribly fond of war nor the pumping of strange chemicals into the ground to force out the very last drop of hydrocarbons. So yes, I am anti-motoring. But having observed motoring in excess in the US verses motoring and cycling and the general shape of people in other lands... I don't believe motoring is all that much a blessing to the US. It has it's place, no doubt, but not to the extend that the typical American takes it.

So what is wrong with wanting to save oil, reduce noise, reduce pollution and generally push Americans toward a transportation system that may actually do them some good?

When anti-motoring is the prime mover for changing American bicycle transportation, the result is dumbed-down cycling which is bad, even dangerous, for those enticed into it and is worse for those who choose to cycle properly according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. That's unethical. The far better policy would be to care for the welfare of cyclists instead of saving gasoline. That concern for those who cycle, rather than for those who don't really want to cycle, would spend much of its effort in improving the skills of the cycling population, thereby both reducing crashes and improving utility.

I don't believe motoring is all that much a blessing to the US. It has it's place, no doubt, but not to the extend that the typical American takes it.

So what is wrong with wanting to save oil, reduce noise, reduce pollution and generally push Americans toward a transportation system that may actually do them some good?

You are not "anti-motoring". "Motoring" is an enjoyable activity.
It seems to me, you support people-focused urban planning.

I love cars yet I agree they are used too much, and are not the "best tool for the job" in many situations.
Sometimes they are the best tool.
In fact, I believe that with more bike and pedestrian focused urban planning, it will make "motoring" more enjoyable and efficient.

Bicycles are better in the urban landscape for many reasons. The reason for advocating it is not because you are "anti-motoring".
The reason for advocating is because it is a better system with far more benefits.

One problem is that too many people let the unproductive opinion frame the discussion, set up the dialogue and ground rules.

These words are made up to create polarity and define people advocating beneficial changes as negative people that are "against" something.
"anti-motoring"? Who "hates" cars? It's like hating a tool, or amazing piece of product design.
I love "motoring". How many people are enjoying "motoring" in the urban setting?
If i'm anti anything, i'm "anti-idling" and "anti-gridlock" and "anti-unhealthy lifestyle". But I'm not "anti" anything because that immediately causes a division amongst people.
I'm FOR a better urban living standard.

"vehicular cycling"? WTF is that? Breaking down cycling into automotive terms or defining it within the parameters of the automobile.
If people just stop using that term, it would be a small victory. Even this outdated, car-centric terminology frames the discussion in a negative way.

In any case, I want to thank you and JCRatliff for some great links and informative posts. I'm learning quite a lot.